Many home theater enthusiasts have considered changing their screen aspect ratio one time or another. But many points arise when choosing between 16:9 and 2.35:1. The wide scope format may not be for everyone. Depending on the content you are watching, you may not need a wide scope lens such as sports and most animated movies.

But there is that ~75% of movie content that is shot in a wide format that most love. The limitation then becomes the cost the lens. Panamorph has developed and now released a new entry-level lens to accommodate enthusiasts who wish to experience the ultra-wide format without breaking the bank.

Quote:

The CineVista™ extends the exceptional Panamorph brand quality to a much broader audience who want a cinema experience at an affordable price. The new lens system will be available by the end of the year and will retail for $1495 including the lens and lens mount.

Quote:

Our new CineVista™ lens represents an incredible value.” commented Russell Warnhoff, Panamorph’s Director of Sales. “Now we can deliver the true cinematic experience by eliminating the annoying black bars on the top and bottom of our favorite movies, yet still fit a tight budget. With the inclusion of the new CineVista™ lens into our lineup with an MSRP of $1495, Panamorph now has a product mix designed to fit every price point and performance level.

So how did Panamorph achieve a lower cost lens such as the CineVista?

Quote:

We listened to our customers who asked for ultra-wide screen cinema at a lower price.” Warnhoff continued. “By eliminating certain costly elements used in our custom lens systems, we were able to hit an extremely low, affordable price point while still delivering an incredible, high quality immersive experience. Our testing proves the performance trade-offs we chose are inconspicuous to most people when viewed with live motion picture content. However, movie lovers looking for the ultimate in clarity and color accuracy can choose the impeccable quality our high performance, custom lens systems offer.”

Those costly elements do include color correction, which now can be adjusted within certain projectors such as some JVC models. The other element is the mounting. This is a fixed configurations, not using a sliding mount. The lens can also be ordered without the fixed bracket and the lens sells for $1295 MSRP. Panamorph recommends using either a Chief Mount or the Omnimount 3N1-PJT.

For anyone who is thinking of changing to 2.35:1 or already using a zoom lens feature, this becomes a more interesting approach at an affordable price point without sacrificing quality.

Lens for me are a bit of a hard sell, I know I'm losing some brightness and quality but do yo spend the money for a lens or do you put that money towards a better projector?. For instance go from a pany 4k to an 8k?

Lens for me are a bit of a hard sell, I know I'm losing some brightness and quality but do yo spend the money for a lens or do you put that money towards a better projector?. For instance go from a pany 4k to an 8k?

Your right that many put the money on a good projector and the blacks are so good that the black bars are not as bothersome. I must say though that since I switched to 2.35, even with a good projector, removing the black bars is stunning. A lens is a long term investment because for the most part, the lens usually out lasts your projector (before you end of changing it). The lens can be adapted to several manufacturers so it becomes an item you can keep for a very long time even if you decide to upgrade your projector.

If the Panamorph, or any other lens or prism, is not 4k compatible, then it's a no-go for upgradeability reasons. It takes an extremely well ground lens or specialized prism surface to allow for the extra detail. I'd doubt that a "budget" setup would be that finely made.

If the Panamorph, or any other lens or prism, is not 4k compatible, then it's a no-go for upgradeability reasons. It takes an extremely well ground lens or specialized prism surface to allow for the extra detail. I'd doubt that a "budget" setup would be that finely made.

That's a great question Dan. I'm actually in the process of finding that info out for you. Will keep you posted shortly.

If the Panamorph, or any other lens or prism, is not 4k compatible, then it's a no-go for upgradeability reasons. It takes an extremely well ground lens or specialized prism surface to allow for the extra detail. I'd doubt that a "budget" setup would be that finely made.

+1 to that.. that would be the primary factor in a decision for me as well. I'm currently using the zoom on my Sony, but if I might be tempted to go the lens route if it is future proof.

When if ever are they going to come out with a native 2.35:1 chip projector at a reasonable price?

That's the $65,000 question. You'd think it could be done with every chip technology out there (LCD, LCOS, DLP). After all, they have a few scope flat panels released. Unless there's an issue with the type of projection lenses they normally use for consumer products to easily allow for the wider projected image. Hmmm...

If the Panamorph, or any other lens or prism, is not 4k compatible, then it's a no-go for upgradeability reasons. It takes an extremely well ground lens or specialized prism surface to allow for the extra detail. I'd doubt that a "budget" setup would be that finely made.

Hey Dan, so I spoke with Panamorph yesterday and the CineVista is currently being tested for 4K content right now. The parameters are very tight for 4K resolution. If the projector has ECC (Electronic Color Correction) you will be able to use the CineVista but if you want to future proof your system, maybe look into a Fixed UH480 lens or the FVX200 lens. The FVX200 retails for $2995, the F480SYS retails for $4150. The F480SYS also includes all the mounting hardware including the projector mount.

Again, they are not saying that the CineVista is NOT compatible with 4K, only that they are testing it out now and it seems to be tight.

I personally still think that we have a few years UHD displays come readily available, not to mention 4K projectors. So personally I am strongly considering the CineVista lens. Whenever I decide to change projector, I will most likely sell it with that projector and pick up a whole new setup.

At 4K resolution there's even less reason to use a lens. Each time resolution increase there is less need for higher pixel density, and lens aberrations degrade the image quality more (even an expensive lens will degrade it to a certain degree).

Plus brightness is no longer really an issue, ease of switching aspect ratios is no longer an issue (with motorized zoom and lens memory), black bars get darker each generation and are solved anyway by having enough black velvet around your 2.35:1 screen to make them invisible.

All the above really applies to 1080p as well. If someone hasn't got into 2.35:1 yet but wants to, I think they should start without a lens and see how they like it.

Hey Dan, so I spoke with Panamorph yesterday and the CineVista is currently being tested for 4K content right now. The parameters are very tight for 4K resolution. If the projector has ECC (Electronic Color Correction) you will be able to use the CineVista but if you want to future proof your system, maybe look into a Fixed UH480 lens or the FVX200 lens. The FVX200 retails for $2995, the F480SYS retails for $4150. The F480SYS also includes all the mounting hardware including the projector mount.

Again, they are not saying that the CineVista is NOT compatible with 4K, only that they are testing it out now and it seems to be tight.

I personally still think that we have a few years UHD displays come readily available, not to mention 4K projectors. So personally I am strongly considering the CineVista lens. Whenever I decide to change projector, I will most likely sell it with that projector and pick up a whole new setup.

This question needs to be answered in two parts.

First, there is the question of where in the throw distance range the CineVista is actually capable of resolving 4K pixels with reasonable sharpness. With the CineVista, that seems to be right around a 12 foot throw. Keep in mind throw distance is separate from throw ratio, so that throw distance may not create an ideal throw ratio for your particular install. Throw ratio for the CineVista should be somewhere around 2.5x the screen height or greater. If the stars align, you're set Keep in mind that the shorter the throw ratio, the more pincushion distortion you will see.

The second part of this has to do with chromatic aberration. To hit the $1500 price point of the CineVista, we had to eliminate the chromatic correction you find in our UH480 and DC1 lens systems. If you are to bring up a white grid test pattern with the CineVista, you will see red and blue begin to separate out from green as you move to the extreme left and right edges of the screen. This is an entirely separate issue from focus, as all three color images are sharp but slightly misaligned. That shouldn’t be confused with focus error even though misalignment might be perceived as blurring. This brings us right back around to what you said above about ECC (Electronic Color Correction). If your projector has this feature (and most LCOS and LCD projectors do), you can dial out this misalignment pretty effectively.

The long and short of it is that the CineVista can do 4K resolutions at the proper throw distance, and for maximum clarity for 4K with the CineVista your projector should have ECC capabilities. If that seems too restrictive, a fixed 480 system might be the right choice for you (the 480 has a wider focus range and has essentially zero chromatic aberration).

Finally we get to the issue of how much of this is even noticeable with actual picture content in real world conditions. Our testing has shown that most people don't even notice any of these issues except when there is a test pattern up on the screen. However, I know that many who read the Forums DO concern themselves with these issues, which is why we are trying to address them in an upfront and direct manner

First, there is the question of where in the throw distance range the CineVista is actually capable of resolving 4K pixels with reasonable sharpness. With the CineVista, that seems to be right around a 12 foot throw. Keep in mind throw distance is separate from throw ratio, so that throw distance may not create an ideal throw ratio for your particular install. Throw ratio for the CineVista should be somewhere around 2.5x the screen height or greater. If the stars align, you're set Keep in mind that the shorter the throw ratio, the more pincushion distortion you will see.

The second part of this has to do with chromatic aberration. To hit the $1500 price point of the CineVista, we had to eliminate the chromatic correction you find in our UH480 and DC1 lens systems. If you are to bring up a white grid test pattern with the CineVista, you will see red and blue begin to separate out from green as you move to the extreme left and right edges of the screen. This is an entirely separate issue from focus, as all three color images are sharp but slightly misaligned. That shouldn’t be confused with focus error even though misalignment might be perceived as blurring. This brings us right back around to what you said above about ECC (Electronic Color Correction). If your projector has this feature (and most LCOS and LCD projectors do), you can dial out this misalignment pretty effectively.

The long and short of it is that the CineVista can do 4K resolutions at the proper throw distance, and for maximum clarity for 4K with the CineVista your projector should have ECC capabilities. If that seems too restrictive, a fixed 480 system might be the right choice for you (the 480 has a wider focus range and has essentially zero chromatic aberration).

Finally we get to the issue of how much of this is even noticeable with actual picture content in real world conditions. Our testing has shown that most people don't even notice any of these issues except when there is a test pattern up on the screen. However, I know that many who read the Forums DO concern themselves with these issues, which is why we are trying to address them in an upfront and direct manner

That's the $65,000 question. You'd think it could be done with every chip technology out there (LCD, LCOS, DLP). After all, they have a few scope flat panels released. Unless there's an issue with the type of projection lenses they normally use for consumer products to easily allow for the wider projected image. Hmmm...

$65,000 question because that's almost as much as current native 2.35:1 (actually, 2.37:1) projectors cost!

Yes, it can be done and has been done - witness the DPI and pd Scope projectors already on the market. Witness also their price tags. The problem is the R & D costs involved in creating a scope projector. First, you need to create a new 2.37:1 chip. Then you have to create a production line to manufacture them. Then you have to create a new light engine and projector lens to support it (as well as new internal electronics and scaling algorithms). All of this for a niche product. The result is the astronomical prices of the current offerings.

These are the same reasons why commercial cinema projectors essentially are configured the same way as our home theater projectors. It has not gone unnoticed by filmmakers either, that their most impressive productions - those shot in 2.40:1 - are actually projected in theaters with the lowest resolution and brightness. The way around this is anamorphic projection (and production as well - some recent movies, such as the Total Recall remake - where shot anamorphic digital). However, there are no current plans to implement anamorphic projection systems in commercial cinemas at this time (though it has been discussed).

The unfortunate fact is that the mass market does not understand widescreen cinema, or even why there are black bars on their favorite movies. Let me share with you my experiences of the last 6 years, going around the country (in fact, the world) teaching people about anamorphic projection and the history of widescreen movies. In every class, I start out asking a room full of home theater and industry professionals "how many of you here understand why there are black bars on the top and bottom of most movies you own or rent?" I am lucky to see even two or three hands go up, even in a room of 100 people or more. And these are home theater pros. If less than 10% of the home theater professionals understand letterboxing, what do you think the percentage is in the general population?

To create demand for such a product, there must first be understanding and education. I see that as one of Panamorph's leading missions

Short answer is that 16:9 games from a game console will just be stretched out to fill the width of the screen (people short and squat, much like how 4:3 looks like stretched out on a 16:9 TV), or you can use vertical stretch, where the very top and bottom of the image will be cut off but the geometry will be correct. If you are a PC gamer, though, there is great news - many PC games can be configured to display properly with an anamorphic setup. See the thread above for more.

Short answer is that 16:9 games from a game console will just be stretched out to fill the width of the screen (people short and squat, much like how 4:3 looks like stretched out on a 16:9 TV), or you can use vertical stretch, where the very top and bottom of the image will be cut off but the geometry will be correct. If you are a PC gamer, though, there is great news - many PC games can be configured to display properly with an anamorphic setup. See the thread above for more.

John, if he used a seperate video scaler or even the internal projector scaler, wouldn't that also work?

John, if he used a seperate video scaler or even the internal projector scaler, wouldn't that also work?

Sure, but if he wants no picture information lost AND no geometric distortion, the only way to do that is by configuring PC games as discussed in the thread I linked to. Unless, of course, the console game is 2.35:1 native, which I have personally never seen. Sometimes the cut scenes are 2.35:1, but I've never seen a console game that has 2.35:1 gameplay.

At 4K resolution there's even less reason to use a lens. Each time resolution increase there is less need for higher pixel density, and lens aberrations degrade the image quality more (even an expensive lens will degrade it to a certain degree).

Plus brightness is no longer really an issue, ease of switching aspect ratios is no longer an issue (with motorized zoom and lens memory), black bars get darker each generation and are solved anyway by having enough black velvet around your 2.35:1 screen to make them invisible.

All the above really applies to 1080p as well. If someone hasn't got into 2.35:1 yet but wants to, I think they should start without a lens and see how they like it.

There is some truth to what you are saying, but it is one thing to talk about a theoretical "need" vs. what people actually prefer. We have certainly seen shootouts between identical projectors, one zoomed and one using an anamorphic lens. Every time the image with the lens wins out when it comes to which image is preferred, mainly due to the higher pixel density and greater brightness that a lens affords. And I would disagree strongly with you that brightness is no longer really an issue, especially when considering 3D. I would agree that brightness is becoming less of an issue, though. Even if every projector was throwing out 3000 calibrated lumens, people will always prefer a brighter image over a dimmer one (without getting ridiculous, of course, like staring into the sun ).

Your suggestion that people try out zoom first to see how they like it is a good one. We are pretty confident that many - if not most - of those people will eventually opt to add on a lens. The AVS Constant Height Forum is full of people who testify to exactly that. Lots of them complain about how they can still see the black bars on the wall. There is also the fact that the vast majority of consumers out there will never put black velvet on their walls to solve this problem (or even understand it, for that matter). Remember, the CineVista is designed for the general public as well as enthusiasts / hobbyists. Sometimes we on the Forum think of ourselves as typical, but the truth is that almost any consumer would be "blown away" by an anamorphic projection system and would never notice chromatic aberration or go through the trouble of pasting black velvet to their walls. They are wanting and paying for an experience, not a system to be tweaked and analyzed.

To make a further point about zoom. What will the average consumer make of the fact that when they go back to the DVD / Blu-ray menu suddenly a large part of the image is falling onto the wall? If they have black velvet up, the menu options will be swallowed up and hard to read. Of course, they can always turn off the autozoom feature, but I just can't imagine people having the patience to have it switch back and forth (every autozoom feature I have seen takes its sweet time switching back and forth between 16:9 and 2.35:1). Most people would just get confused and throw up their hands. It is true that menus are an issue with anamorphic lenses as well, but there is an easy, simple fix - simply turn off the vertical stretch scaling with the push of one button. Much simpler than messing with zoom settings.

Lastly, projectors with auto-irises pose a particular black bar problem, as the "blackness" of the letterbox bars varies with picture content.

Adding an anamorphic lens will yield higher pixel density and brightness. Those are true. But at the same time the process of anamorphic stretch (stretching 21:9 area to the 16:9 sensor) loses some of the resolution because the pixel is no longer in 1:1 ratio. Add to the fact that adding any lens of even the highest quality one will decrease some sharpness to the image and will add some level of distortion especially at the edges.

So, having tried both (zoom method vs the same projector using Panamorph lens), other than the brightness, I still prefer zoom mode than adding a lens.

If the Panamorph, or any other lens or prism, is not 4k compatible, then it's a no-go for upgradeability reasons. It takes an extremely well ground lens or specialized prism surface to allow for the extra detail. I'd doubt that a "budget" setup would be that finely made.

It's optics, so resolution isn't affected by linearity.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyrone Burton

Personally, I like to see all of the image as possible, but don't know know if a 2:35:1 native content crops, like PC games or movies.

Pretty easily, you have say a 1920x1080 (16:9) image, then use the video drivers (from Nvidia or AMD, or Powerstrip if the former don't suffice) to scale the image into an aspect ratio (say for 2.35, 1920x816), and you can either have it in letterbox or stretched. You don't need any additional scalers or equipment unless you want to.

Here is (a rather amateurish video, but nonetheless gets to the point) video I made on how to do this with the NVidia Control panel.

i sold my P4000 to add $ and buy JVC X35/ rs46. If I would have got the lens to go with my P4000 I'm pretty sure I would be as happy as upgrading to jvc. When zoomed 2;35;1 on 135" screen the image is stunning.